IMPORTANT POINT
The failure to consider the objection regarding the existence of a concluded contract by the arbitral tribunal was a violation of the fundamental policy of Indian law and in conflict with the public policy of India.

JUDGMENT :

1. By way of the instant petition, a challenge is made to the order impugned dated 10.12.2014, passed by the Additional District Judge No.5, Jaipur Mahanagar in Civil Misc. Case No. 54/2011 titled as Rajasthan Rajya Path Parivahan Nigam vs. M/s Bhagwati Enterprises & Anr., whereby the application preferred by the petitioner on 20.09.2014, came to be dismissed and/or rejected.

2. The ineluctable and concise factual matrix, necessary for the efficacious disposal of the instant petition, is noted herein-under:-

2.1 That Notice Inviting Tender i.e. NIT, for appointment of Sole Licensee for transportation of Domestic Articles/Small Commercial Goods from one place to another, through a fleet of 4000 buses was published in the daily newspapers namely, ‘Rajasthan Patrika’ and ‘Dainik Bhaskar’.

2.2 That the terms and conditions qua the said NIT were incorporated in the Tender Form for the perusal and/or consideration of the prospective applicants. One of the terms enumerated therein, provided that the successful tenderer shall have to enter into an agreement with the petitioner, on the terms already provided for in the Tender Form.

2.3 That in response to the advertisement/NIT, four applications were received along with earnest money. The respondent no.1, who submitted the tender documents along with the letter dated 25.01.2005, was found to have offered the highest amount. Subsequently, letter dated 31.01.2005 was sent by the petitioner to the respondent no.1, informing him of the acceptance of its proposal and thereby, called upon him to deposit the security amount of Rs. 6,66,786/-by way of a Demand Draft/Banker Cheque in terms of Condition No.4 as well as a License Fee of Rs. 40,00,716/-for six months, of a Scheduled Bank in terms of Condition No. 18 of the NIT, in order for the agreement to be executed.

2.4 That on 22.02.2005, the respondent no.1 was informed of appointment as the Sole Selling Licensee for a period of three years from 21.03.2005 to 20.03.2008 along with the applicable terms and conditions, as prescribed in the tender application.

2.5 That the respondent no.1, sent letter dated 19.03.2005, to the petitioner stating therein that they had not yet received the formal terms of the agreement enabling them to execute it and thereby, initiate action for energizing the centers for providing the requisite services at the allotted office premises on bus stands.

2.6 That subsequently, the prescribed proforma for executing the agreement was provided to respondent no.1.

2.7 That on receipt of the proforma agreement, the respondent no.1 submitted letter dated 23.03.2005, requesting the petitioner to delete condition nos. 29 and 30 from the proposed terms and conditions of the agreement and also to incorporate a clause regarding ‘permits’. The said letter was received on 28.03.2005.

2.8 That meanwhile, the respondent no.1 purchased non-judicial stamp paper of Rs.100/-at Indore and got the agreement in the prescribed proforma typed on it, which was signed by its proprietor, Shri. Sanjay Somani on 28.03.2005. It was also signed by two witnesses belonging to Indore, on the same date. Subsequently, the agreement was sent to Jaipur, which was signed by the Chairman of the petitioner on 29.03.2005.

2.9 That when the file containing the agreement was received back by the Financial Advisor of the petitioner, who was to sign along with the Executive Director (Administration) as witnesses, pursuant to the signatures of the Chairman of the petitioner, it was noticed that a hand-written note reading “valid goods permit is pre-requisite and clause nos.29 and 30 are not acceptable” was interpolated on Page No. 7 of the agreement by the respondent no.1, which was not there and/or was absent, when the file was sent to the Chairman of the petitioner for his signatures.

2.10 That upon noticing this addition of the hand-written note, the Financial Advisor called a meeting in his Chamber on 31.03.2005 in which the Executive Director (Administration)